Research Commentary—Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Flexibility in Making Software: Toward a Contingency Theory of the Determinants of Development Process Design

References

• Agerfalk P. J., Fitzgerald B. Flexible and distributed software processes: Old petunias in new bowls? Comm. ACM (2006) 49(10):27–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile T.Creativity in Context (1996) (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Google Scholar
• Austin R. D. Ford Motor Company: Supply chain strategy. (2001) . Harvard Business School Case 699-198, Harvard Business School Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Austin R. D. High margins and the search for aesthetic coherence. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2008) 86(1):18–19Google Scholar
• Austin R. D., Devin L.Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work (2003) (Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B.Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (2000) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Kemerer C. Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (1989) 15(10):1199–1205Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Slaughter S. A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Management Sci. (1997) 43(12):1709–1725Link, Google Scholar
• Beck K.Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (1999) (Addison-Wesley, Boston) Google Scholar
• Beck K., Beedle M., van Bennekum A., Cockburn A., Cunningham W., Fowler M., Grenning J., et al. Manifesto for agile software development. (2001) . Accessed January 25, 2008, http://agilemanifesto.org/Google Scholar
• Boehm B. W. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput. (1988) 21(5):61–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boehm B. W., Turner R.Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed (2003) (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston) Google Scholar
• Bohm C., Jacopini G. Flow-diagrams, turing machines, and languages with only two formation rules. Comm. ACM (1966) 9:366–371Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks F. P.The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering (1995) Anniversary Edition(Addison-Wesley , Reading, MA ) Google Scholar
• Brooks F. P. No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comput. (1987) 20(4):10–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen C. M.The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Clark K., Fujimoto T.Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Performance in the World Auto Industry (1991) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Conboy K. Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Inform. Systems Res. (2009) 20(3):329–354Link, Google Scholar
• Cooper R. G.Winning at New Products (1986) (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York) Google Scholar
• Cooper R. G. The new product process: A decision guide for managers. J. Marketing Management (1988) 3(3):238–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cotteleer M. J., Austin R. D., Nolan R. L. Cisco Systems, Inc.: Implementing ERP. (1998) . Case No. 699-022, Harvard Business School, Harvard Business School Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Cox B. J. Planning the software industrial revolution. IEEE Software (1990) 7(6):25–33Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahl O. J., Nygaard K. SIMULA '67 common base proposal. (1967) (Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway) Google Scholar
• Dahl O. J., Dijkstra E. W., Hoare C. A. R.Structured Programming (1972) (Academic Press, London and New York) Google Scholar
• David P. A. The dynamo and the computer: A historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1990) 80(2):355–361Google Scholar
• Dijkstra E. W. Go to statement considered harmful. Comm. ACM (1968) 11(3):147–148Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dijkstra E. W. Notes on structured programming (circulated manuscript). (1969) . Accessed January 25, 2008, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD249.PDFGoogle Scholar
• Edmondson A. C., McManus S. E. Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Management Rev. (2007) 32(4):1155–1179Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. (1989) 14(4):532–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Tabrizi B. N. Accelerated adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1995) 40(1):84–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ford H.My Life and Work (1922) (Garden City Publishing, Garden City, NY) Google Scholar
• Franke N., Von Hippel E. Satisfying heterogeneous needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1199–1215Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fröberg J., Crnkovic I., Larsson M. Software components and COTS in software system development. Building Reliable Component-Based Software Systems (2002) (Artech House, Boston) Google Scholar
• George J. F., Zmud R. W. The origins of software: Acquiring systems at the end of the century. Framing the Domains of IT Management Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past (2000) (Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati) Google Scholar
• Harris M., Collins R., Hevner A. Control of flexible software development under uncertainty. Inform. Systems Res. (2009) 20(3):400–419Link, Google Scholar
• Hayes R., Wheelwright S. Link manufacturing process and product life cycles. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1979) 57(1):133–140Google Scholar
• Hayes R., Wheelwright S.Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing (1984) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Highsmith J. H.Adaptive Software Development: A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems (1999) (Dorset House, New York) Google Scholar
• Highsmith J. H.Agile Software Development Ecosystems (2002) (Addison-Wesley, Boston) Google Scholar
• Hopp W. J., Spearman M. L. To pull or not to pull: What is the question? Manufacturing Service Oper. Management (2004) 6(2):133–148Link, Google Scholar
• Iansiti M., MacCormack A. Team New Zealand (A). (1996) . Case 9-696-040 Harvard Business School, Harvard Business School Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Iansiti M., MacCormack A. Developing products on Internet time. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1997) 75(5):108–117Google Scholar
• Jacobson I., Booch G., Rumbaugh J.The Unified Software Development Process (1999) (Addison-Wesley, Boston) Google Scholar
• Kanigel R.The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency (1997) (Viking, New York) Google Scholar
• Kay A. C. The early history of smalltalk. ACM SIGPLAN Notices (1993) 28(3):69–95Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller C. M., Dixon Keller J.Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work (1996) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Kemerer C. How the learning curve affects case tool adoption. IEEE Software (1992) 9(3):23–28Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knuth D. Structured programming with goto statements. Comput. Surveys (1974) 6(4):261–301Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krafcik J. F. Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Rev. (1988) 30(1):41–52Google Scholar
• MacCormack A. D., Verganti R., Iansiti M. Developing products on Internet time: The anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):133–150Link, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A., Rusnak J., Baldwin C. Y. The impact of component modularity on design evolution: Evidence from the software industry. (2007) . Unit Research Paper 08-038, Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1071720Google Scholar
• MacDuffie J. P. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. (1995) 48(2):197–221Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin J.Rapid Application Development (1991) (McMillan, New York) Google Scholar
• Marwaha S., Patil S., Tinaikar R. The next generation of in-house software development. McKinsey Quart. Online J. McKinsey & Co (2006) FebruaryGoogle Scholar
• McCalley B. W.Model T Ford: The Car That Changed the World (1994) (Krause Publications, Iola, WI) Google Scholar
• Mills H., Ruskin R. Top-down programming in large systems. Debugging Techniques in Large Systems (1971) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Mirsky J., Nevins A.The World of Eli Whitney (1952) (The Macmillan Company, New York) Google Scholar
• Mitchell W. J. Constructing complexity in the Digital Age. Science (2004) 303(5):1472–1474Google Scholar
• Nambisan S. Information systems as a reference discipline for new product development. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(1):1–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nevins A.Ford: The Man, the Company (1954) (Charles Scribner and Sons, New York) . With the collaboration of F. F. HillGoogle Scholar
• Northrop L. M., Clements P. C., Bachmann F., Bergey J., Chastek G., Cohen S., Donohoe P., et al. A framework for software product line practice. (2007) July). Working paper, Version 5.0, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Osterweil L. Software processes are software too. Proc. 9th Internat. Conf. Software Engrg. (1987) Monterey, CA(March):2–13Google Scholar
• Parnas D. Agile methods and GSD: The wrong solution to an old but real problem. Comm. ACM (2006) 49(10):29Google Scholar
• Paulk M. C. Agile methodologies and process discipline. Crosstalk: J. Defense Software Engrg. (2002) . Accessed January 25, 2008, http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/10/paulk.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Royce W. W. Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. Proc. WESCON (1970) AugustGoogle Scholar
• Sannella D. Algebraic and logical foundations of formal software development. (2008) . Accessed January 25, 2008, http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dts/alf/Google Scholar
• Sannella D., Tarlecki A. Essential concepts of algebraic specification and program development. Formal Aspects Comput. (1997) 9:229–269Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schrage M.Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate (2000) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Shah R., Ward P. T. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. J. Oper. Management (2003) 21(2):129–149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slaughter S. A., Harter D., Krishnan M. Evaluating the cost of software quality. Comm. ACM (1998) 41(8):67–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slaughter S. A., Levine L., Balasubramaniam R., Pries-Heje J., Baskerville R. Aligning software processes with strategy. MIS Quart. (2006) 30(4):891–918Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spear S., Bowen H. K. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1999) 77(5):97–106Google Scholar
• Staats B. R., Upton D. M. Lean principles, learning, and software production: Evidence from Indian software services. (2007) . Working Paper 08-001, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Thomke S.Experimentation Matters (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Voas J. COTS software: The economical choice? IEEE Software (1998) 15(2):16–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wirth N., Gutknecht J. Ten years after: From objects to components. Project Oberon: Design of an Operating System and Compiler. (1992) (Addison-Wesley, Boston) 4342005 (original 1992), http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/ProjectOberon.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Womack J. P., Jones D. T., Roos D.The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production (1990) (Rawson Associates, New York) Google Scholar
• Wood J., Silver D.Joint Application Design (1995) 2nd ed.(John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Yin R.Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1994) 2nd ed.(Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar